acronis_fetch_alerts_grouped_by_scope

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add behavioral detail. It does contribute the important aggregation semantics: one alert per group, selected as the most recent among the most severe, which is real behavior beyond the annotations. It omits pagination limits, result-size caps, and ordering of the returned groups.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the grouping behavior is stated up front. It is slightly dense and the nested superlative construction takes a moment to parse, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only aggregation tool with a fully documented nested schema and no output schema, the description should still say what a group looks like and how many alerts are returned per group. It implies one alert per group but leaves the response shape and any result caps entirely unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the nested query object documents scope_key and scope_value in detail, including the or() operator for grouping multiple values. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond 'the scope you choose', so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb 'Gets' and a resource 'alerts', and it distinguishes the variant by its aggregation behavior: one representative alert per group chosen by scope. That implicitly separates it from acronis_fetch_all_alerts and acronis_fetch_alerts_grouped_per_customer, though it never names those siblings directly. The phrase 'most recent of the most severe' is slightly awkward but still conveys the selection rule.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only usage signal is the phrase 'the scope you choose', which hints that the caller selects a grouping key but does not clarify when this tool is preferable to acronis_fetch_all_alerts, acronis_fetch_alert_counters, or acronis_fetch_resources_with_top_severity_alerts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.